Fusion poisons; why fission has none

"CC" wrote in message
...
In article , Raziel wrote:

"CC" wrote in message
...
In article , Raziel wrote:

"CC" wrote in message
...
In article , Raziel wrote:

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know what percentage of a star's mass of iron that
the
star
explodes into a
nova or supernova. What percentage of iron in a star core that
renders
it
to a nova stage?

try looking it up. there are pleanty of references out there.

Raz

You ignorant twit. Every reference is based upon unsubstantiated
theory. No facts. What a blooming knee jerk reaction fool you
are.

very constructive.

Raz

Damn rights it is. You're a super jackass and just in case you're
going around thinking that you're helpful you need to be re-informed
about just what kind of a dull brained prick of a person you really
are.

Do you think insults add to your arguments?

I think that people who are merely regurgitators of modern theories are
a pox. When I see people trying to refer a complete loon like Archie

well, we can agree on that at least.

to published texts of theories

I never said that. I said there are pleanty of references out there.

matters concerning the operations of
stars which have exactly zero experimental data to back them up then I
throw up my hands in frustration. So, no, insults do not add to my
arguments but they are free of charge. :-).

Perhaps I overreacted to your seemingly apparent knee-jerk reaction
referral.

perhaps.


It is evident that you equate incompetent nonsensical theories
which themselves are not products of reason nor logic but rather of
intellectual masturbations that have no basis in reality with physical
reality. It is easy to show that using only the simplest axiom of
motion between quanta and Maxwell's equations that nuclear fusion
doesn't work like the textbooks say that it does.

What, exactly, does that have to do with either AP's question or my
answer?
Answer: nothing.

Wrong. It has everything to do with both. First, his question is rife
with assumptions that have exactly zero basis in reality.

Agreed on the latter.. And perhaps if he spent some time looking for the
answer we would be spared from his silly questions for some time.

Next, there's absolutely no relationship between the iron present in and
around a star and the tendency of a star to be involved in a supernova
event.

I won't argue with that point either.

Third, any text or theory that you might refer him to that
might give such parameters has no basis in reality either.

maybe, but I left it up to him to find the reference. I specified nothing,
I only said there are references out there.

So, you have a worse than a blind man in Archie asking a question the
contents
of which were formed by pseudoscientific concepts concerning the
operations of stars

many of which can be answered regardless of the fusion theory to which you
subscribe.

and then we have you, another blind man in these matters,
pointing him toward more texts as if anything approaching a
definitive answer was in the grasp of the authors of such texts.

I said there were references out there. One of those references could be
yours, you never know what he will find. Then again, if you actually wrote
up your theories into a text, it would also be out there more readily for
people to find.

Contrary to your pseudo rebuttal I've shown numerous times that fusion
doesn't work like people think that it does and this means that stars
and their actual dynamics are not well represented in any texts on the
matters.

fine, but irrelevant to the post at hand.


This is something that is not only substantiated by the data but
follows
all the rules of
logical deduction.

yes, you always say that, but never show anything. But again, that is
completely irrelevant to the post at hand.

No. It wasn't irrelevant to the post at hand at all. You have
accepted a series of fairy tales concerning the operations of stars and
the truth is that you could deduce the truth from data that is readily
available to anyone. But it appears you are neither willing to learn
the facts, or worse, even care about them. As I stated above, I've
layed out the interactive dynamics of elementary charged particles
numerous times and I've shown how people can deduce these dynamics from
experimental data, the simplest axiom of motion between quanta,
Maxwell's equations and the basic axiom that quantum particles always
obtain to the lowest available energy state. This stuff isn't hard to
learn at all, it merely takes a dedication to the truth that you've
demonstrated that you don't possess. I'd like to always think that
there could be some hope for people; that eventually they'll want to
see the light (which is the first step to actually seeing it) and I
even have that hope for you Raz but when you make comments indicating
that I've made claims but never show anything then I know that you must
be asleep at the switch to an even greater extent than I suspected. I
figure if I insult you that you'll either get so ****ed off that you'll
quit posting nonsense or you'll be forced to put me in your kill file.

You claim you have presented material, and technically you have. You have
posted it here. All I ask from you is a paper. Write it up. Include all
of your mathematics, all of your definitions of terms and axioms, any
citations you may have, and anything else that the reader needs to be able
to follow the mathematics from top to bottom. A newsgroup is not the proper
forum to present mathematics such as this. It is difficult to follow, and
does not contain all the information necessary.

Of course what I'd really like would be if you took physics seriously
and if you cared enough about it to get to the bottom of things
yourself instead of just referring people to pseudoscientific texts and
theories. As far as Archie goes, I'm afraid he really is beyond help.
But you, well I would think that you would have the intellectual
capacity to deal with physics in a logical reasonable manner and it is
frustrating to see that you don't bother.

see above comment.

Raz